Just to be clear, that doesn't mean he wouldn't have lost otherwise, or that forced arbitration wouldn't have worked in his favor. If forced arbitration wasn't a consideration, he might still have lost.
Arbitration is a net loss for the human. The rulings are secret. The impersonal corporation knows which arbiters favor it and which do not, and can blacklist based on that. Arbiters only get work if they continue to rule for corporations. The corporation knows which arguments worked for it in the past with arbiters, but the judgements are secret and the human cannot research as a corporation can.
Arbitration is a biased loss for a human up against a corporation in mandatory binding arbitration via a contract of adhesion.
No, that's all material to the point. It's the same type of thing that led to most IP cases being heard in a particular Circuit/District Court in Texas.
When you as the consumer have nil input into establishing an impartial venue, and the COMPANY has an ongoing business relationship with the Arbiter on which the Arbiter depends it completely undermines the integrity of the proceedings. It's like asking your Mother in Law to preside over divorce proceedings.
How is this so hard to understand?
If a company can force you into that regime, and has all the bargaining power in the transaction, you are not at the table as equals. You are cattle. You are meant to consume and remain silent. Any complaints will be ignored in the order they are received.
You can say that IDEALLY the Arbitration company runs arbitration for many other companies, so is an impartial body in this case. Losing this ONE business wouldn't hurt right?
Except their bills ARE PAID by your opponent. You don't bite the hand that feeds. It's why the public justice system "works". If arbitration is so effective, it should be integrated into the public justice system and funded accordingly. Otherwise, it's your Civil Rights being discarded by corporate contract lawyers.
No, it's not. The point being not whether arbitration is good or not, simply contesting the implication that the only reason lost because of a forced arbitration clause.
The only way you can disagree with that or argue it is to prove otherwise, which you can't.
Just to be clear, that doesn't mean he wouldn't have lost otherwise, or that forced arbitration wouldn't have worked in his favor. If forced arbitration wasn't a consideration, he might still have lost.